Download Project Concept and PDF-B Document

PROJECT CONCEPT
REQUEST FOR PIPELINE ENTRY AND PDF-B FUNDING
AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: PIMS 3423
GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 2773
COUNTRY: Costa Rica
PROJECT TITLE: Overcoming barriers to
sustainability of Costa Rica’s Protected Areas System
GEF AGENCY: UNDP
OTHER EXECUTING AGENCY: Costa Rican National
Protected Area System (SINAC)
DURATION: 6 months
GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity
GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP2 and 3
GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: BD-1
ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: June 2005
ESTIMATED WP ENTRY DATE: November 2005
PIPELINE ENTRY DATE: April 2005
FINANCING PLAN (US$)
GEF ALLOCATION
Project (estimated)
Project Co-financing
(estimated):
PDF A
PDF B
PDF C
Sub-Total GEF
PDF Co-Financing
GEF Agency
National Contribution
Others
Sub-Total PDF CoFinancing
Total PDF Project
Financing:
9,700,000
38,000,000
335,000
10,035,000
59,500
173,000
232,500
567,500
RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:
Ricardo Ulate
Date: 28 June 2004
Director of Ministry of Environment and Energy
GEF Focal Point
This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the
standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for Concept approval.
Yannick Glemarec
Deputy Executive Coordinator
8 April 2005
1
Mr. Antonio Perera
Project Contact Person
Tel. and email: [email protected]
PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT
A – SUMMARY
1. Despite a terrestrial surface area of only 51,100 km2 and 589,000 km2 of marine territory, in
terms of total number of species, Costa Rica ranks among the 20 most diverse countries in
the world. Part of the reason for this is Costa Rica’s geographic location between a sea and
an ocean, with mountains covering over half of its terrestrial area, ranging in altitude from
sea level up to 3800 meters. An estimated 4% of the planet’s terrestrial species are found in
Costa Rica, even though it represents just 0.01% of the global surface.
2. Costa Rica’s current National Development Plan (`02) and its report on compliance with the
Millennium Development Goals (Dec.’04) emphasize its desire to consolidate a model for
sustainable development, for example, by promoting income-generation based on tourism
and information technology rather than traditional agriculture and export of raw natural
resources. The National Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity
(2000) identifies the need to consolidate in situ conservation efforts. The protected area
system provides the cornerstone for biodiversity conservation. Currently around 25% of the
national territory (terrestrial part) is under some form of protected management category.
3. Despite the impressive extent of the protected area system, several barriers remain that
constrain the biological and financial sustainability of the system. These include:






Human resource constraints, related to ineffective or inaccessible financial mechanisms
A complex and incomplete legal framework
Institutional capacity constraints that inhibit the application of effective protected area
management models
Gaps in the ecological representativeness of the system
An inability to engage local stakeholders as partners in conservation
The low profile of protected areas as drivers of national economic development
4. The proposed project is consistent with GEF Strategic Priority BD1, Catalyzing
sustainability if protected area systems. It will complement other initiatives, some of which
are co-financed by the GEF, to overcome these barriers. The objective of the project will
therefore be to Develop the systemic and institutional capacity to overcome barriers to
sustainability of the Costa Rican National Protected Area System. In order to achieve this
objective, a number of outcomes are foreseen, the details of which will be elaborated during
the project preparatory process. However, it is anticipated that the outcomes will include:
 Outcome 1. The legal and policy framework promotes financial sustainability of the
NPAS.
 Outcome 2. SINAC has the institutional capacity to manage its human and financial
resources in support of strengthened protected area management.
 Outcome 3. Ecological sustainability of the NPAS is secured through revisions and
additions to the system.
2



Outcome 4. Partnerships with civil society and the private sector strengthen protected
area management.
Outcome 5. Policy makers and the general public acknowledge the role of protected
areas in national sustainable economic development.
Outcome 6. Best practices are replicated throughout the NPAS.
B – COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
1. Country Eligibility
5. Costa Rica ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on August 26, 1994, and is
eligible for technical assistance from UNDP.
2. Country Drivenness
6. Costa Rica’s current National Development Plan (`02) and its report on compliance with the
Millennium Development Goals (Dec.’04) emphasize its desire to consolidate a model for
sustainable development, for example, by promoting income-generation based on tourism
and information technology rather than traditional agriculture and export of raw natural
resources. The President’s pledge to ban oil exploitation and open-pit mining at WCCD in
Johannesburg in 2002 is another expression of this desire.
7. Conservation of biodiversity is an essential component of this vision for sustainable
development, and the protected area system provides the cornerstone for biodiversity
conservation. Currently around 25% of the national territory (terrestrial part) is under some
form of protected management category. The National Strategy for Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (2000) identifies the need to consolidate in situ conservation
efforts.
8. A focus on effective conservation of biodiversity is also reflected in the UNDAF for Costa
Rica. One of the three “substantive areas” of support under UNDAF is “Sustainability”.
This will be addressed through action at three levels: promoting democracy, modernizing
governance, and promoting public participation. These levels of UNDAF intervention also
correspond with barriers to sustainability of the system of protected areas (see analysis
below).
C – PROGRAMME AND POLICY CONFORMITY
1. Programme Designation and Conformity
9. The project is consistent with GEF Biodiversity Strategic Priority 1: Catalyze sustainability
of protected areas within the context of national systems. The proposed project will
contribute to the removal of threats to biodiversity and their underlying causes by addressing
barriers to sustainability of the protected area system. The project is consistent with the
3
concept of incremental costs, as the GEF-funded component will be integrated with related
initiatives that seek to address one or more of the barriers to sustainability. The proposed
project also complies with other GEF eligibility criteria in being aligned with national
policies, adopting a participatory approach, and promoting replication.
10. Given the predominant ecoregions in Costa Rica, biodiversity benefits would clearly be
captured in the forest, and marine, coastal, and wetland ecosystems operational programmes
(OP 3 and 2).
11. Furthermore, the proposed project responds to recent guidance of the Conference of the
Parties to the CBD, especially as reflected in Decision VII/28, in adopting a systems
approach, emphasizing the importance of connectivity, and supporting capacity building, and
democratic governance.
2. Project Design
Environmental context: biological diversity in Costa Rica
12. Despite a terrestrial surface area of only 51,100 km2 and 589,000 km2 of marine territory, in
terms of total number of species, Costa Rica ranks among the 20 most diverse countries in
the world. Part of the reason for this is Costa Rica’s geographic location between a sea and
an ocean, with mountains covering over half of its terrestrial area, ranging in altitude from
sea level up to 3800 meters. An estimated 4% of the planet’s terrestrial species are found in
Costa Rica, even though it represents just 0.01% of the global surface.
13. It is estimated that approximately 12% of Costa Rica’s plant species (approximately 1200
species) are endemic to the country, while endemism of freshwater fish is estimated at 14%.
For the terrestrial vertebrates groups, the greatest endemism is located in the regions of
Talamanca and highlands of the Central Volcanic Mountains (80%), with a particular wealth
of herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles), birds and flora. This is also one of the zones with
the greatest number of mammal species in danger of extinction. From the viewpoint of flora,
the cloud forests in the upper parts of the mountain ranges are considered highly endemic,
particularly with respect to ferns and epiphytes, and especially orchids.
14. The National Protected Area System (NPAS) constitutes the cornerstone of efforts to
conserve the country’s rich biodiversity. The first protected areas were established in Costa
Rica in 1945, and in 1955, the first national parks were declared around several volcanoes.
The protected area system was rapidly expanded during the 1970s and 80s, such that it now
covers 25% of the terrestrial land area of the country. The following Table and the map in
Annex 2 show the distribution of these areas according to management category as of the
Year 2001.
4
Table 1. Protected Areas by Management Category 2001
Management Category
Quantity
Total
169
Area (ha)
1,305,011
% of national
territory
25.58
National parks
26
621,267
12.23
Biological reserves
8
21,663
0.42
Protective zones
32
166,604
3.06
Forest reserves
11
227,545
4.47
National wildlife preserves
65
182,473
3.53
Wetlands (includes mangroves)
15
62,195
1.53
1/
Other categories
12
23,264
0.34
1/
Absolute nature reserves, national monuments, and other state-owned properties
15. In addition to the NPAS, there are over 100 private reserves, amounting to a total area of
55,000ha. The Costa Rican Network of Private Nature Reserves is a non-profit association
created to support the establishment and management of private reserves. Any individual or
legally registered entity owning land in a natural state may belong to the association. Many
of these private reserves are located in areas that form part of proposed biological corridors
which seek to reestablish or maintain connectivity between protected areas in the national
system.
16. Finally, there are 21 indigenous territories, representing 6% of national territory (some 3,200
km2) and by law under the autonomous administration of indigenous peoples. While not
actually protected areas, the reserves function as sustainable use zones, helping to safeguard
the ecological integrity of the landscape, including protected areas in the vicinity.
Legal context
17. The Forest Law of 1969 and the National Parks law of 1977 established the basic framework
under which the NPAS was established. However, several other laws established various
categories of protected area, and no law clearly describes the management implications for
different categories of protected areas.
18. The Law on Biodiversity (1998) established SINAC as a semi-autonomous entity under the
Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE).
Institutional context: administration and funding of NPAS and related areas
19. All categories of protected areas within NPAs are under the jurisdiction of SINAC (Sistema
Nacional de Areas de Conservacion). The SINAC is responsible for the establishment and
coordination of a system of decentralized and autonomous “Conservation Areas, of which
there are 11 in the country. Each Conservation Area is administered by a Director and a
5
small staff, supported by a Regional Council and Scientific and Technical Committee. The
mandate of the Conservation Area Directorates, and of SINAC at the national level, is to plan
and coordinate the sustainable use of biodiversity. As such, their mandates include, but are
not limited to management of protected areas. For example, the Conservation Area
Directorates are also responsible for the issuance of logging permits and other sustainable use
permits.
20. The human resources available to SINAC currently amount to 948 people, of which
approximately 50% (474) are distributed among the 11 regional offices and 32 subregional
offices, and 42% (398) are located in the protected areas. Only 26% of protected areas have
at least one ranger on a regular basis, and barely 11% have up-to-date management plans.
21. Half of SINAC’s budget (or about $15 million) comes from government budgetary
allocations, which are negotiated with the Ministry of Finance through MINAE. These
allocations are used to pay staff salaries and other expenses. A further 25% of SINAC’s
budget comes from three funds. The first and largest of these is the National Parks Fund,
which is financed through revenues generated by protected areas, including entrance fees,
sale of goods, etc. The smaller Forest Fund and Wildlife Fund are financed through a portion
of the fees charged on timber harvesting, and wildlife harvesting, especially fishing,
respectively. The final 25% of SINAC’s budget currently comes from other sources. These
include international cooperation and other types of donor support, including through the
establishment of several local trust funds.
22. Many protected areas include privately owned land within their borders, as well as land over
which tenure is contested. National policy is to secure legal clarity regarding land within
National Parks and Biological Reserves, and purchase all privately owned land. It is
estimated that $55 million is required to purchase all such private lands in National Parks and
Biological Reserves.
23. Costa Rica has a well-established system of payments for environmental services, which
include mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions; protection of water supplies; protection of
biodiversity; and protection of ecosystems, forms of life and natural scenic beauty for
tourism and scientific ends. This system is administered under the 1996 Forest Law by
Forest Financing Fund (Fondo de Financiamiento Forestal - FONAFIFO). FONAFIFO
assigns amounts, periods and limits of hectares per participant eligible for public funding.
Payments for environmental services are funded from two sources. The first is through a fuel
tax, currently fixed at 3.5% of the consumption tariff and estimated at approximately $12
million in 2002. In addition to this, FONAFIFO has negotiated a number of “external”
funding sources from donor organizations, including donor countries, international
organizations and local private companies.
Under FONAFIFO, public land, such as
protected areas, is not currently eligible for environmental service payments. The Law on
Biodiversity (1998) did include provisions for environmental service payments on public
land, but these provisions have yet to be put into operation. There are also other sources of
environmental service payments, including some administered by municipalities.
6
Threats to biodiversity and their underlying causes
24. Threats to biodiversity in Costa Rica fall into two main categories. The first of these
includes various causes of change in land use. Agricultural expansion, urbanization and
tourism development are all causes of land use change. Agricultural expansion applies over
large parts of the country, while urbanization and tourism development are more localized
threats, with tourism particularly affecting coastal and marine ecosystems. The second
category of threat involves over-exploitation of natural resources. This category includes
illegal hunting, fishing, timber extraction and harvesting of other plant species.
25. One important underlying causes of these threats is ambiguity over land tenure. Where land
ownership is unclear or contested, there is little incentive for stakeholders to manage their
resources sustainably. Furthermore, patrolling and policing is more difficult where land
tenure is uncertain. The judicial system also tends to view environmental offences leniently.
This means that the risk of capture and penalty for illegal activities is so low that there is
effectively no deterrent. The reliance of a high proportion of the rural and coastal population
on natural resource exploitation in the absence of alternative options for income generation
exacerbates these problems.
26. While Costa Rica has expressed its intension to modify macro-economic drivers so as to
promote sustainable development, this national policy has yet to be aligned with other
sectoral policies. Thus, perverse incentives for inappropriate land uses remain in effect.
Crops such as coffee remain a common livelihood option for rural poor, and tourism
development is frequently immune from considerations of conservation priorities. These
underlying causes will be analysed in more detail during the PDF-B.
Barriers Impeding Sustainability of the National Protected Area System in Costa Rica
27. Despite significant efforts to establish an effective system of protected areas, partially
supported by external funding assistance, including through the GEF, key barriers to the
sustainability of Costa Rica’s NPAS remain. These barriers are:
28. (i) Human resource deficiency, associated with weaknesses in sustainable financing
mechanisms. Currently, SINAC’s human resources amount to 948 staff. These are
distributed among the central, 11 regional, and 32 sub-regional offices, and the 169 protected
areas. This means that only 26% of protected areas have at least one ranger on a regular
basis, in addition to which, rangers are required to undertake a multitude of tasks, many
unrelated to conservation. Some of SINAC’s budget is also used to pay staff in other
divisions of MINAE.
29. Re-profiling of staff functions to increase the proportion of staff allocated to protected areas
is not a viable option to overcome this problem. For example, only 8% of the total staff work
in the central office. Although 50% of the staff are allocated to regional and sub-regional
offices, the remaining 42% being assigned to protected areas, it is important to note that
SINAC is responsible not only for conservation, but also for environmental management on
7
land outside protected areas, for example in the administration and control of timber felling
licenses.
30. Similarly, while there are certainly opportunities to devolve responsibility for some functions
to partner organizations (subject to overcoming legal barriers described below), the
magnitude in short-fall of resources means that this can only offer a partial solution.
31. A recent study has indicated that, even accounting for alternative approaches to address
resource shortfalls, SINAC’s annual financial resource requirements amount to $38 million,
of which $17.7 million is required for administration of the NPAS (SINAC 2003), compared
with current allocations that fall well short of these figures.
32. Overcoming this barrier will require interventions to address systemic and institutional
capacity, such that opportunities for revenue generation through tourism, payments for
environmental services, and other mechanisms can be consolidated.
33. (ii) Complex,and incomplete legal and policy framework. The key laws establishing the
legal framework for the NPAS, especially the 1977 National Parks law, address only the
government sector, and are silent on the actual and potential role of civil society. This
means, for example, that there is no legal basis for co-management of protected areas in
Costa Rica. Nor can protected area managers or Conservation Area Directors legally devolve
responsibility for some functions to the private sector or community organizations. Thus, for
example, it is not legally possible to award concessions for management of tourism facilities,
such as car parks, restaurants or toilets, which results in a substantial additional work load on
protected area staff.
34. Conversely, the 1996 Forest Law limits payments for environmental services to private
individuals, meaning that protected areas cannot earn revenue from the services they provide
(with the exception that revenues derived from the provision of scenic beauty are captured
through tourism payments). There are a few examples of voluntary “token” payments which,
because of their voluntary nature, are exempt from legal constraints. For example, a water
bottling company and the municipal government’s water supply service in Heredia makes
such token payments to the National Park Foundation, which manages several accounts for
SINAC. The municipal government also charges a hydric tariff on water bills, these funds
being used to pay landowners in the upper watershed, including both private and public
lands. This serves as one model from which lessons for wider application could be drawn.
35. The 1998 Law on Biodiversity, which created SINAC, envisioned a decentralized system of
environmental management, under which Conservation Area Directorates would be
responsible for establishing policies appropriate to their local conditions, enjoying a level of
semiautonomy. However, some elements of the law were challenged in Constitutional Court,
and the legality of parts of the Law remains undetermined. Related to this constitutional
challenge, regulations have yet to be finalized for other elements, including the provisions for
environmental service payments for public land. The result is that policy making remains
highly centralized, meaning both that policy responses to environmental management
challenges are slow to be effected, and often are not appropriate for local conditions.
8
Furthermore, resource flow mechanisms have yet to be developed, meaning that
Conservation Areas have limited control over financial resources.
36. Another challenge, related to the policy of purchasing privately held land in protected areas,
concerns the contested ownership of many of these areas. Legal resolution of ownership
needs to be achieved, but it has been estimated that around $55 million will be required to
purchase all such privately held land.
37. The effects of these legal short-comings affect the effectiveness and efficiency of protected
area management. Principles of participation and democratic governance are difficult or
impossible to apply, and new models of protected area management cannot be adopted. This
complicates relationships with local stakeholders, which in turn limits the effectiveness of
interventions designed to address threats to biodiversity. The complex and incomplete legal
framework also limits opportunities for revenue generation.
38. (iii). Institutional capacity within SINAC and partner organizations limits opportunities to
consolidate management of the NPAS. Despite numerous processes of strategic planning,
that have generated documents such as the National Strategy for the Conservation and Use of
Biodiversity, the National Strategy for Investigation of Natural and Cultural Resources and
the National Strategy for Wildlife Conservation and Management, there is no strategic vision
for management and development of the protected areas system. In 2003, an “Agenda for
Protected Areas” was published, but this consists of a list of requirements without the
required strategic vision to achieve the desired results. As strategic planning is linked to
annual planning and budgeting, these processes are constrained.
39. The weak strategic planning at the central level is reflected also at the level of individual
protected areas, as only 9 of the 169 protected areas have management plans under
implementation, a further 11 have plans in the process of being prepared, and one has a plan
awaiting endorsement. Such plans that do exist are frequently inadequate – for example,
only seven protected areas have management plans that address public access and use.
40. SINAC was created with a vision for a decentralized, deconcentrated and democratic
organization, in which the 11 Conservation Areas would enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
However, due to incomplete application of the 1998 Law on Biodiversity, this vision remains
unattained. Consequently, SINAC has an administrative structure designed for decentralized
operations, yet remains a highly centralized entity, and this constrains the institutional
effectiveness of the Conservation Areas. As policy decisions are still centralized, effective
management of protected areas is compromised. Furthermore, limited capacity for financial
management results in unnecessary “leakages” of self-generated revenues.
41. These institutional constraints have resulted in opportunities for individual capacity building
being lost. For example, linkages between protected area managers and the research
community are weak or absent. This causes two problems. Firstly, the research community
fails to generate information relevant to challenges encountered by protected area staff.
Secondly, even when such information is available, it remains unused.
9
42. Similarly, many protected area managers are unaware of opportunities for improved
management through partnerships with local stakeholders. Other constraints, discussed in
the following paragraph make such partnerships problematic, but attitudes among many
protected area managers are such that relationships with local stakeholders are frequently
neutral or confrontational.
43. (iv) Stakeholders near the protected areas cannot be engaged as partners in conservation.
There is currently no legal basis under which directors of conservation areas or protected area
managers are able to engage local stakeholders as partners in conservation. Although there
are a few examples where such partnerships have been developed, they are illegal, and
widespread adoption of such models is not possible.
44. Consequently, local stakeholders obtain few direct benefits from protected areas, and
therefore view them only as potential sources of natural resources from which income can be
(illegally) derived. Threats such as poaching and illegal felling of timber continue inside
some protected areas, although in others a partnership of agencies has reduced the threat.
Nevertheless, local communities could play a larger role in policing these activities if they
perceived greater potential benefits from doing so.
45. There are many opportunities for community-based organizations to benefit from protected
areas, especially where tourism is encouraged. The management of tourism facilities could
be offered on a concession basis to such organizations, which would not only generate
income for local stakeholders, but would also free SINAC staff from activities that divert
them from conservation-oriented tasks.
46. In some parts of the country, there are examples of private individuals holding land near or
adjacent to protected areas establishing their own tourism facilities, such as ecolodges.
These individuals benefit directly from protected areas, because visitors to their facilities also
visit the nearby-protected areas. In some cases, the ecolodge owners have made voluntary
financial contributions to assist in management of the protected areas, recognizing that their
own livelihoods are linked to the quality of the natural resources. However, it is also
frequently the case that no payments are made, and relationships between ecolodge owners
and protected area managers are often strained, as tourism visitation is not controlled or
subject to conservation planning.
47. (v). The protected area system is ecologically incomplete. Although the protected area
system covers an impressive proportion of Costa Rica’s territory, and all major terrestrial
ecosystems are represented, there are several ways in which the system is ecologically nonsustainable.
48. Many of the protected areas were established on an opportunistic basis, and are isolated in a
landscape that is not suitable for conservation, thus effectively forming ecological “islands”.
Even some of the largest protected areas are inadequate for conservation of species such as
large predators that require extensive territories. Consequently, there is a need to review the
location of protected areas in relation to conservation biology principles in order to increase
connectivity in the landscape.
10
49. The categorization of protected areas also needs to be reviewed. Again, the original
designation was unrelated to ecological requirements, and it is likely that some areas that
should be subject to strict protection are not designated as such. For example, as tourism
visitation increases, the potential negative impacts are likely to grow, but currently there is
little or no effort to take account of conservation needs in developing nature-based tourism.
50. Finally, and most significantly, although terrestrial ecosystems are well represented, there is
a dramatic under-representation of coastal and marine ecosystems in the protected area
system. Currently, only 13 of the 169 protected areas cover marine ecosystems, amounting
to only 364,000 ha. The country lacks a comprehensive vision of its territorial sea, which
covers 587,000 km2, including 210 km of coastline on the Caribbean Sea, and 1,106 km on
the Pacific.
51. (vi). The political and macro-economic planning processes do not recognize the
contribution of protected areas to economic development. Given the government’s
emphasis on sustainable development, and the position of tourism as an economic driver,
under-recognition of the role of protected areas in macro-economic planning would seem to
be counter-intuitive. However, the national accounting process fails to distinguish among the
various forms of tourism, and there is consequently an inaccurate assumption among policy
makers that mass tourism, involving beach and coastal developments typical of other
countries is the main source of revenue. Although survey figures do exist showing that 60%
or more of tourists visit protected areas, the financial management system does not allow the
relative financial contributions of nature-based tourism to be assessed.
52. The legal constraints on developing partnership agreements with local stakeholders also
means that the political base for support to the protected area system is limited to government
agencies and environmental NGOs. The large potential support base remains untapped.
53. Clearly, the systemic and institutional capacity building required to address other barriers
would also help to overcome this barrier. However, the process by which political support
would build in response to increased capacity would be slow. An active strategy to raise
awareness among policy makers and the general public can speed up the process.
Baseline situation
54. Under the current legal and institutional framework, the financial resources available to
SINAC will remain stable or, more likely, will slowly decline over time. Financial resources
secured through the government budgetary process have tended to decrease in real terms in
recent years, while institutional constraints mean that SINAC cannot access other types of
financing effectively. There are currently high levels of “leakage” in revenues generated by
the protected areas themselves, due to the financial management process. Protected area
managers therefore have little incentive to consider innovative ways to increase revenues, as
they see little direct benefit. Similarly, the potentially significant financial resources that
could be generated through payments for environmental services will remain untapped due to
11
legal constraints. Consequently, the large shortfall in human resources, and particularly in
terms of park rangers will continue, and may grow if financial resources decline.
55. Legal and institutional constraints also mean that local stakeholders will continue to be
excluded as partners in conservation. This has two major consequences. Firstly, threats to
biodiversity will continue, or may grow, as local stakeholders see no benefit to be derived
from conservation, and therefore view the resources in the protected areas only in terms of
opportunities for (illegal) exploitation. Secondly, because protected area staff are unable to
enter into partnership agreements with local stakeholders, tasks that should logically be outsourced will continue to be the responsibility of protected area staff, thus limiting their
capacity to undertake conservation-related tasks such as patrolling, monitoring, and support
to research.
56. Ecologically, the risk of species extinctions in the system will increase due to a lack of
connectivity in the system and inappropriate categorization of individual protected areas. In
particular, the status of coastal and marine ecosystems will decline due to underrepresentation in the system. Recently, a Marine Coastal Interdisciplinary Committee of the
Exclusive Economic Zone was established, to examine the viability of dedicating up to 25%
of the EEZ conservation, restoration, management and sustainable use of existing species and
ecosystems. However, translating this theoretical assessment into reality will be constrained
by the same factors affecting sustainability of the terrestrial protected areas.
57. The potential role of private reserves in promoting connectivity among protected areas is
recognized.
The role of the Mesoamerican Corridor Project (CCAD/UNDPGEF/GTZ/UNEP RLA97/G31) and the UNDP/GEF Small Grants Program has been valuable
to developing this concept. However, due to the constraints affecting the system as a whole,
these efforts have taken a largely opportunistic approach to date, and consequently many
corridors remain only on paper, or are ecologically inappropriate.
58. In the mid-nineties, as part of the Gruas Project1, a review was made of the objectives for
creating protected areas and of the representativeness of the ecosystems within them.
Suggestions were advanced about both the protected areas and the biological corridors
necessary for their interconnectivity. However, few of these recommendations were acted
upon. A Gruas II project is currently being planned, which will take account of ecological
and socio-economic changes in the last decade, but in the absence of this project, the
likelihood of Gruas II having any more impact than Gruas I is low.
59. Finally, because of the low profile of protected areas in the political, and particularly the
economic planning process, political support for measures to rectify the baseline situation
will not emerge. This will leave SINAC unable to capitalize on the potential to exploit
existing financial mechanisms more effectively, or to take advantage of additional
mechanisms, engage local stakeholders as partners, or modify and expand the protected area
system.
1
The objective of the Gruas Project was to determine the territorial extension of NPAS required in order to
conserve at least 90% of the nation’s biodiversity (García, 1996).
12
Alternative Scenario
60. The proposed project would build the systemic and institutional capacity for SINAC to
become financially self-sustainable, and able to adapt, develop and apply participatory
models of conservation management in strengthening the effectiveness of the protected area
system. This would also enable SINAC to overcome current weaknesses in the system, such
that conservation of all terrestrial and marine ecosystems is effective and ecologically
sustainable.
61. The project will approach capacity development in a cost-effective manner. Thus, for
example, while modifications are required to the current legal framework, the project will
examine all possible solutions, including the application of innovative models of protected
area administration. To illustrate this point, the current legal constraints on payments for
environmental services to public institutions can be addressed in two ways – either by
amending the law to permit payments to public institutions, or by establishing the protected
areas administration as a non-public, or as a joint public-private entity. The project
preparatory process will therefore examine these and other possible models in terms of costeffectiveness.
62. By establishing the systemic and institutional capacity for financial sustainability of the
protected area system, other barriers related to partnerships with civil society and the private
sector will also be addressed. The awareness campaign, conducted in parallel with capacity
development will also establish political and general public support for protected areas.
63. The project will also identify changes in location and designation of protected areas
necessary to promote ecological sustainability of the system. A significant effort will be
made in extending the system to provide adequate coverage of coastal and marine
ecosystems. A strategic planning process at the central level and at the level of individual
Conservation Areas and protected areas will establish a long-term vision for effective
conservation.
64. While many interventions will be necessary at the central level, the project will also support
the demonstration of innovative approaches in terms of financial mechanisms and
partnerships with stakeholders at the local level. The most appropriate locations for such
demonstrations will be identified during the PDF-B process, but the project will establish
mechanisms to ensure that lessons learned through the demonstrations are disseminated,
adapted and adopted in Costa Rica, and are also fed into regional cooperation efforts on
biodiversity conservation.
Gap analysis
65. Although there are major challenges in overcoming the identified barriers to sustainability,
the project will not be working in isolation. Other GEF co-financed initiatives will address
some of the key barriers. For example, the World Bank “eco-Markets 2” project, which is a
follow-on from the original Eco-Markets project, will identify the most appropriate design to
maximize benefits that can be accrued from payments for environmental services. This is a
13
very significant contribution to financial sustainability of the protected areas system, as it
currently enjoys virtually no financial benefits from environmental service payments. An
IADB initiative, entitled the “Program of Sustainable Tourism around the Protected Areas”
will also generate outputs that will assist in the design of more effective financial
mechanisms. Therefore, this project will focus on facilitating the necessary institutional and
legal changes necessary to (a) make more effective use of direct revenue generation
mechanisms (e.g., to minimize “leakage” of revenues from tourism visitation) and (b) ensure
that the capacity exists to maximize the potential financial benefits accruing from payments
for environmental services.
66. The regional MesoAmerican Biological Corridor project, and its Costa Rican national
component, is making contributions in terms of establishing conditions for corridor
establishment.
The UNDP/GEF Talamanca-Atlantic Corridor project focuses on
establishment of one particularly significant corridor. In this regard, the GEF Small-grants
programme and efforts of national and international environmental NGO’s are also making
valuable contributions in establishing private reserves in identified biological corridors.
Consequently, this project will focus on (a) supporting a process to review the ecological
validity of proposed corridors, and (b) establishing conditions to encourage the development
of more active partnerships with civil society and private individuals.
67. The MesoAmerican Biological Corridor project is also helping to promote regional
cooperation in biodiversity conservation, thus facilitating the establishment of conditions to
allow dissemination and adoption at a regional level of lessons learned through this project.
68. In terms of marine conservation, the UNDP/GEF Cocos Island project will help to conserve
biodiversity by promoting sustainable use and addressing threats posed by invasive alien
species. However, this represents only a small contribution in dealing with a major gap in
the NPAS. Lessons learned from the Cocos Island project will be valuable in guiding the
establishment of other coastal and marine protected areas through this project.
69. The UNEP/GEF Marine Corridor project seeks to establish a marine corridor among the
Islands of Cocos (Costa Rica), Coiba (Panama), Mal Pelo and Gorgona (Colombia) and the
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador). As the focus in Costa Rica is on Cocos Island and its
immediate vicinity, the project is similar to the UNDP/GEF Cocos Island project in terms of
its contribution to the protected area system.
Project Intervention
70. Given the Baseline situation, the barriers to sustainability of the NPAS, and taking account of
contributions through other initiatives, the Objective of this project is to Develop the systemic
and institutional capacity to overcome barriers to sustainability of the Costa Rican Protected
Area System. Securing this Objective will contribute to the higher level Goal of
Consolidating the Protected Areas System as a key component of sustainable development in
Costa Rica.
14
71. In order to achieve the project Objective, a number of Outcomes will be secured. The PDF-B
process, in undertaking a more thorough analysis of the barriers, will refine the proposed
Outcomes as necessary. In particular, the Outputs and Indicators described below are
indicative only.
Outcome 1. The legal and policy framework promotes financial sustainability of the NPAS.
72. Indicator: By the end of the project, the proportion of SINAC’s budget originating from
government budgetary allocations has decreased to 30% (baseline value 50%), while the total
annual budget available to SINAC has increased by 15% over 2004 values (baseline value
$30 million).
73. Output 1.1 The legal framework is adjusted to eliminate constraints to financial
sustainability. This Output will deliver the necessary changes identified during the PDF-B
process. As discussed above, possible changes may involve modifications to existing laws
or, if more cost-effective, making the necessary institutional changes to secure financial
sustainability using existing laws
74. Output 1.2 Policies and mechanisms are established for more efficient management and use
of financial resources. This Output will ensure that “leakage” of revenues generated by
protected areas will be minimized. In place of the current, non-transparent system of
budgetary allocations, incentives will be established to promote revenue generation in
protected areas, while a transparent system of budgetary allocations will be developed, such
that protected areas that enjoy fewer opportunities for revenue generation are nevertheless
financially self-sufficient
75. Output 1.3 Innovative financing mechanisms are developed and introduced. This Output,
which will be financed largely through co-financing, especially by the IADB, will establish
mechanisms which, under the modified and improved legal and policy framework, will
secure financial sustainability of the NPAS.
Outcome 2. SINAC has the institutional capacity to manage its human and financial
resources in support of strengthened protected area management.
76. Indicator 1: By the end of year 2, a national strategic plan for the NPAS has been adopted by
SINAC (baseline value: no plan exists), and by the end of the project, the number of
protected areas with management plans has tripled compared with 2004 values (baseline
value: 18).
77. Indicator 2: By the end of the project, values of the WB/WWF Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool for a sample of 15 protected areas increase by 20% on average, compared with
2005 values, and no protected area reports a decrease (baseline values to be determined
during the PDF-B).
15
78. Output 2.1 A system-level Strategic Plan is adopted and implemented. This Output will
establish a clear system-wide vision, as part of the process of empowering Conservation Area
Directors and protected area managers to strengthen their own planning processes.
79. Output 2.2 Protected Area Management Plans exist for at least 25% of the protected areas.
Given the very low proportion of protected areas with Management Plans at the beginning of
the project, it is unrealistic to expect that all protected areas will have Management Plans by
the end of the project. However, the project will support the preparation of Management
Plan for key protected areas currently lacking them, and in so doing, will facilitate the
process of developing Management Plans in other protected areas.
80. Output 2.3 SINAC and Conservation Area Directorates have increased capacity to manage
financial resources and support protected area operations. Changes in financial management
processes will reduce leakage of self-generated revenues, and ensure a fair and equitable
distribution of resources to all protected areas.
81. Output 2.4 Technical capacities of protected area staff are strengthened. The increased
institutional capacity of SINC secured from the previous Outputs will permit more
investment in the individual capacity of protected area staff (for example, in adaptive
management and biological monitoring). This will strengthen links to local stakeholders and
the research community, and ensure more effective monitoring and management of protected
areas.
82. Output 2.5 Biological monitoring and protected area management strengthened by
incorporating state-of-the art information generated by the research community.
Outcome 3. Ecological sustainability of the NPAS is secured through revisions and
additions to the system.
83. Indicator 1: By the end of the project, at least 75% of the recommendations generated by
Gruas II have been implemented (Note: Completion of the Gruas II process, and finalization
of recommendations, will be facilitated during the PDF-B).
84. Indicator 2: By the end of the project, the NPAS incorporates at least 18 marine protected
areas (baseline value: 13)
85. Output 3.1 Categories of designation of specific protected areas amended in line with
recommendations form Gruas II. This Output will ensure that those protected areas requiring
strict protection are designated accordingly, and conversely, protected areas capable of
supporting uses such as nature-based tourism are also appropriately designated. In some
cases, protected areas might even be de-gazetted if they are not contributing ecologically to
biodiversity conservation within the NPAS.
86. Output 3.2 Modifications to biological corridors are reflected in support to the Network of
Private Nature Reserves. Again, Gruas II recommendations may identify the need to
redesign corridors. As most land in corridors is privately owned, these recommendations
16
will be effected through support to the Network of Private Nature Reserves, in partnership
with environmental NGO’s and the Small Grants Programme.
87. Output 3.3 Priority marine protected areas are gazetted, staffed, and have Management
Plans. This Output will address the major gap in NPAS, namely the under-representation of
coastal and marine ecosystems.
88. Output 3.4 Legal status of private and contested land within protected areas is resolved.
This Output will establish the requirements and necessary technical mechanisms for land
purchases, and allow financial planning to effect those purchases so as to consolidate the
Natural State Patrimony.
89. Output 3.4 Boundary disputes with indigenous territories are resolved. In the Talamanca
region and Osa Peninsular, the designation of Indigenous Territories has created some cases
of overlap with protected areas.
Outcome 4. Partnerships with civil society and the private sector strengthen protected area
management
90. Indicator: By the end of the project, different types of partnerships have been demonstrated
in at least 5 different protected areas.
91. Output 4.1 Shared management models demonstrated in protected areas in different
ecological and socio-economic conditions. This Output will support pilot demonstrations of
co-management arrangements with local community-based organizations or NGO’s in at
least 3 contrasting ecological and socio-economic conditions.
92. Output 4.2 Mechanisms to share benefits with local communities, for example, through
awarding of concessions, are demonstrated. This Output will support pilot demonstrations
of shared benefits through involvement of municipalities, community-based organizations,
and the private sector in the provision of services for tourism, research, or other uses of
protected areas.
93. Output 4.3 Institutional capacities of partner organizations, including municipalities and
community-based organizations are strengthened. The demonstrations in Outputs 4.1 and
4.2 will also involve capacity building of partner organizations.
Outcome 5. Policy makers and the general public acknowledge the role of protected areas
in national sustainable economic development.
94. Indicator: By the end of the project, awareness of the role and importance of protected areas
in national sustainable economic development has increased by 50% among policy makers,
and 25% among the general public, as measured on the basis of surveys (Baseline values to
be determined during the PDF-B).
17
95. Output 5.1 Modifications to processes of revenue reporting, supported by awareness
materials, raise the level of awareness among policy makers, especially in the Ministry of
Finance, about the contribution of protected areas to the national economy. This Output will
ensure that protected areas enjoy a high profile in terms of national level budgeting and
policymaking.
96. Output 5.2 Publications and media coverage increase the awareness of the contribution of
protected areas to sustainable development among the general public. This Output will
strengthen the impact of Output 5.1 by increasing public support for the NPAS.
Outcome 6. Best practices are replicated throughout the NPAS
97. Indicator: By the end of the project, every Conservation Area has already implemented, or
has plans to implement measures to strengthen protected area management by incorporating
lessons generated by the project.
98. Output 6.1 SINAC has implemented a process to exchange lessons learned among
Conservation Areas and protected areas
99. Output 6.2 Staff of Conservation Area Directorates have received training on mechanisms
piloted through the project.
3. Sustainability (including financial sustainability)
100. The project will support the consolidation of the NPAS in Costa Rica by addressing
systemic and institutional capacity constraints, thus establishing conditions under which
financial sustainability is possible. The project will also support the development of
financing mechanisms (to be funded through co-financing), such as the IADB’s Sustainable
Tourism initiative. Such initiatives, which also include the WB/GEF project on EcoMarkets, will generate increased financial flows. The capacity building undertaken by this
project will ensure that the increased financial resources are managed effectively and
efficiently.
101. The strategic planning process for the NPAS will identify investment priorities and
establish the basis for annual planning and budgeting. Linkages will also be developed
between management authorities and international conservation agencies and donor
organizations, helping to generate new investments and enabling Costa Rica to learn from
best practices established elsewhere. As such, financial sustainability will underpin the
formulation of the general policy for protected areas.
102. Ecological sustainability would be sought in successive stages to consolidate and expand
the NPAS within financially viable limits. To achieve ecological sustainability in the face of
competing demands for land, the NPAS will be based on the ecosystem approach, which
recognizes that protected areas need to be conserved within the context of the surrounding
landscape and land use.
18
103. Other key aspects of sustainability will involve promoting direct benefits for local
communities through their participation in associated services and alternative uses of natural
resources (such as ecotourism).
104. In addition, the project will consolidate and improve marine protected areas and will
consolidate the PA system, involving both establishing new areas and increasing
management effectiveness in those already existing. The development and use of appropriate
tools for monitoring management effectiveness is therefore critical. Finally, a monitoring and
evaluation plan will be formulated as a basis for measuring project outcomes and tracking
progress in implementation. The plan would help assess advances toward achieving project
objectives on the basis of specific impact and output indicators.
4. Replicability
105. The project will develop a NPAS Strategic Plan to define a series of management
approaches, guidelines and mechanisms for their implementation. Pilot demonstrations will
be undertaken to determine and ground-truth cost-effective management solutions and test
specific funding mechanisms as an input for defining the Strategic Plan. In turn, this Plan
will include a range of policy and regulatory mechanisms to ensure the replication of lessons
learned from the pilots in other PAs with similar characteristics during successive stages of
the NPAS. Although the Strategic Plan will lay out the path for successive expansion of the
NPAS, as best practices from the pilot PA and subsequent phases of the NPAS become
clearer, policy frameworks would be adjusted accordingly to further facilitate replication of
these lessons throughout the system. Replication of capacity building will also be addressed
in the NPAS Strategic Plan, as it will include specific guidance on institutional development
and organization that includes staff development programmes.
106. The NPAS to be consolidated in Costa Rica will be based on the new paradigm for PAs,
and will put in place mechanisms to ensure necessary participation and equitable sharing of
the benefits of protected areas with local communities. The project will also provide lessons
of use to other countries with similar characteristics. In order to facilitate the replicability of
project results in both the country and region, a specific component will be incorporated in
the project design. Along with the customary writing up of lessons and dissemination of
documents, other mechanisms could be employed, such as web-based and physical
exchanges and the establishment of a regional-level forum for exchanging knowledge.
107. Many of the pertinent lessons from GEF financing are coming from the Small Grant
Programme, with over a decade of experience in Costa Rica. Through this project, the
country is scaling-up on many of the successful initiatives involving community participation
in protected areas management, rural tourism, biological corridors and environmental
services payment. (http://www.nu.or.cr/gef/).
108. Other GEF projects in the region may provide relevant lessons for the Costa Rican
context. This will start during further project design to ensure these are incorporated into
19
design and continue in the implementation stage of the expected FSP. Projects targeted to
provide lessons for design include the following:
 Private reserves: experiences from Brazil in private reserves as an integral part of the
national protected area system, particularly lessons learnt from the UNDP/GEF MSP
project, Establishment of Private Natural Heritage Reserves (RPPNs) in the Brazilian
Cerrado (PIMS 1209), providing insights on the use of tax exemptions to promote private
reserves and best practices for selecting, creating and maintaining these to improve
coverage of public PA and provide linkages across the landscape
 Financing sources Also from Brazil, lessons from the use of fiscal mechanism such as the
return of ICMS tax resources to municipalities with protected areas will be explored.
Experiences related to the use of payments for environmental services in the UNDP/GEF
project, Biodiversity Conservation in the Paramo and Montane Forest Ecosystems of the
Colombian Massif (PIMS 1321).
 NGO co-management schemes for reducing the running costs of PAs will be drawn from
the UNDP/GEF project in Guatemala, (PIMS 1330) Integrated Biodiversity Protection in
the Sarstun-Motagua Region (RECOSMO). Also, country experience in NGO comanagement in Brazil and Bolivia will be considered.
 Inter-institutional coordination mechanisms for enhancing and consolidating PA
management within a systems approach will be drawn from the UNDP/GEF project,
Strengthening the National System of Protected Areas in Cuba (PIMS 2186).
 Experiences in Category V and VI derived through the UNDP/GEF Paraguayan project,
Wildlands Protection Initiative (PIMS 1421), particularly the San Rafael Reserve, which
is almost exclusively private land, and the multi-use category EPA in Brazil.
5. Stakeholder Involvement
109. Involvement of local communities and government is central to a new paradigm for
protected areas emerging worldwide, and an important lesson learned in Costa Rica. Thus the
participation of local communities adjacent to, or included in, protected areas will be actively
sought, and they will be one of the principal beneficiaries of the project. Their needs and
aspirations in relation to quality of life will be considered, both in the consolidation of the
system and in individual areas. Building on success from the SGP, members of local
organizations will consolidate their input as park rangers, guides, technicians, and
professionals.
110. Some stakeholders from these communities include: small rural farmers; communities of
fishermen; craftsmen; breeders of native species; local community organizations; members of
NGOs settled nearby protected areas; small tourism entrepreneurs; women, young people and
children in the rural communities; teachers and professors and other public agents of these
communities. The project will also involve and strengthen the capacities of a wide range of
stakeholders at regional and local levels of the public sector (for example, technicians from
local governments, local councils), which will contribute to consolidation of the NPAS.
111. They will also be a key target for awareness-raising on the benefits of biodiversity
conservation, from maintaining ecological reserves to productive land uses.
20
Stakeholder participation during project preparation:
112. During the preparation of this concept paper, six workshops were held for strategic
reflection with key participants of SINAC (both management and conservation areas), INBio,
ELAP/UCI, CI, TNC, IUCN and UNDP. The workshops took place in September of 2004
and January 2005, and will be continued throughout project preparation, incorporating
different actors as deemed appropriate.
113. With PDF funds, participation will broaden significantly under the context of learning
from the lessons of representatives from different sectors, including community and local
leaders, scientists, the private sector and decision makers.
D. FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
1. Financing Plan
114. On the basis of the indicative Outputs described above, initial calculations suggest that
GEF funding in the order of $9-10 million will be sought. The magnitude of the request is
related to the size of the current NPAS, recognizing the major deficiencies in terms of
management planning and financial management, and especially due to the need to address
the major gap in the NPAS through the establishment of marine protected areas.
115. A ratio of co-financing in excess of 2:1 is anticipated. The major sources of co-financing
are:
 The Government of Costa Rica, which will provide cash and in-kind support in
modifying its policies and processes so as to increase support to SINAC and the NPAS
 The IADB, especially through its Sustainable Tourism initiative, which will facilitate the
establishment of mechanisms to increase financial sustainability of the NPAS
 UNDP, through support to improvements in environmental governance and capacity
building of civil society organizations.
Cost Effectiveness
116. As noted above, the project design process, to be supported with PDF-B funds, will adopt
an approach that will consider all possibilities for strengthening of systemic and institutional
capacity, especially of SINAC. This includes the adoption of innovative institutional
structures such as public companies or public-private partnerships, if analyses indicate that
these represent the most cost-effective approach.
117. A broad-based stakeholder participation plan will serve as the basis of securing strong
links not only to other GEF co-financed initiatives, but also to national and regional
initiatives supported by other organizations, including other donors and national and
international NGOs. This will ensure that the proposed project supports interventions that
complement, and are complemented by these other initiatives.
21
E. INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
1. Core Commitments and Linkages
118. In UNDP Costa Rica’s Country Cooperation Framework (CCF 2002-2006) four areas of
action have been defined, “Environment and Energy” being the area with by far the largest
portfolio. The CCF emphasizes that Costa Rica will maintain its focus to comply with the
commitments made under the Biodiversity Convention UNDP Costa Rica and that UNDP
will “continue to support [the country] in the implementation of the National Biodiversity
Strategy by means of the consolidation of the biological corridors and the national protected
area system”.
119. In overcoming the identified barriers, the PDF-B phase and full size project will
complement and build on the following (GEF) initiatives:







The World Bank “Eco-Markets 2” project, the continuation of Eco-Markets project, will
identify the most appropriate design to maximize benefits that can be accrued from
payments for environmental services.
The IADB Program of Sustainable Tourism around the Protected Areas, will generate
outputs that will assist in the design of more effective financial mechanisms.
The Costa Rican component of the MesoAmerican Biological Corridor project is making
contributions in terms of putting into place conditions for corridor establishment.
The UNDP/GEF Talamanca-Atlantic Corridor project focuses on one particularly
significant corridor.
The GEF Small-grants programme and national and international environmental NGO’s
are making valuable contributions in establishing private reserves in identified biological
corridors.
The UNDP/GEF Cocos Island project will help to conserve biodiversity by promoting
sustainable use and addressing threats posed by invasive alien species. Lessons learned
from the Cocos Island project will be valuable in guiding the establishment of other
coastal and marine protected areas.
The UNEP/GEF Marine Corridor project seeks to establish a marine corridor among the
Islands of Cocos (Costa Rica), Coiba (Panama), Mal Pelo and Gorgona (Colombia) and
the Galapagos Islands (Ecuador). As the focus in Costa Rica is on Cocos Island and its
immediate vicinity, the project is similar to the UNDP/GEF Cocos Island project in terms
of its contribution to the protected area system.
2. Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between and among Implementing
Agencies, Executing Agencies, and the GEF Secretariat, if appropriate.
120. Regular meetings between SINAC and UNDP staff with the World Bank (all located in
the RUTA project) have contributed to a close coordination of GEF activities in the country.
22
3. Implementation/Execution Arrangements
121. The Government of Costa Rica will execute the PDF-B project under the UNDP National
Execution (NEX) modality. In its capacity as executing agency, the Costa Rican National
Protected Area System (SINAC) will be responsible for directing the project, meeting the
immediate objectives and projected outputs, making effective and efficient use of the
resources allocated in the PDF-B document, and ensuring effective coordination between the
project and the other existing projects in the country dealing with strengthening of the
SINAC and protected areas.
122. A Project Steering Committee (members SINAC and UNDP) will be established that will
perform the following tasks:
 Select the PDF-B team to assist SINAC in the formulation of a FSP.
 Evaluate the progress of the team and agree on the necessary measures to guarantee the
agreed products within the agreed timeframe.
 Meet at least two times during the PDF-B phase.
123. The Advisory Committee (SINAC, INBio, ELAP/UCI, CI, TNC, IUCN and UNDP) will
continue to function as a strategic platform in the preparation of the full-size project.
124. In this PDF-B phase, participation in project design will broaden significantly by
including representatives from different sectors, including community and local leaders,
scientists, the private sector and decision makers.
125. The PDF-B team will be located in SINAC and will be responsible for day-to-day
implementation of all project activities including direct supervision of the activities that will
be contracted to consultants. This unit will be headed by a Project Coordinator.
126. The PDF-B team will work under the direct supervision of a Project Director, a staff
member of SINAC, who will spend a sufficient amount of time on the project and report to
the Project Steering Committee.
127. UNDP will be ultimately accountable to GEF for project delivery and responsible for
supervising project development, guiding PDF activities and contracting staff if requested by
SINAC.
23
PART II - Project Development Preparation
A - Description of Proposed PDF Activities
128. The requested PDF B grant and associated co-financing would be implemented over a
period of approximately 6-month duration. It would support the detailed design of the FSP in
a participatory manner, the preparation of ancillary documentation for submission to GEF
and support initial awareness building activities to facilitate the implementation of the Full
Size Project. It would achieve two main Outcomes as follows:
 Capacity deficiencies for the establishment of a sustainable protected area system have
been fully assessed and best approaches defined to address these through the FSP
 GEF and UNDP project documentation have been prepared, validated amongst
stakeholders and presented for evaluation and approval
129. These outcomes would be achieved through the outputs and activities detailed in the
following section.
OUTCOME 1: Capacity deficiencies for the establishment of a sustainable protected area
system have been fully assessed, and best approaches defined to address these through the
project
Output 1.1: Baseline biodiversity assessment and completion of PA effectiveness analysis
130. This Output will focus on the compilation, analysis and systematization of existing
information regarding the status and trends of Costa Rica’s biodiversity along with the main
threats to this and their root causes. A major component of this work will be through support
to the Gruas II process, which has already been initiated.
131. This would include the assessment of management effectiveness in selected PA using the
WB/WWF Tracking tool to provide baseline data for the FSP M & E plan and to
systematically quantify existing weaknesses and as such, identify capacity requirements that
would need to be addressed in the FSP.
132.
Activities:

Identify knowledge gaps and assess the adequacy of existing data management and that
required to adopt a systematic approach to PA management.

Undertake an in-depth investigation of threats and root causes of threats to Costa Rica’s
biodiversity, including policy, institutional, social, and economic issues that have a
bearing on conservation, so as to determine the most effective ways these could be
addressed through the PA system. This would also include an analysis of the barriers that
impede the current PA to fulfil conservation roles.

Conduct a status assessment of existing protected areas to identify habitats and species
currently not represented (including coastal and marine ecosystems), as well as priority
threats and problems.
24

Propose the criteria for the selection of potential areas to integrate into the NPAS and
reclassification of existing PAs.
Output 1.2 Analysis of the current legal and policy framework affecting protected area
management in Costa Rica.
133. As noted in the Concept Paper, the current legal and policy framework is complex. The
analysis provided in the Concept Paper is known to be incomplete, but no detailed analysis is
currently available. This output will result in a comprehensive analysis, and will also
identify proposed modifications to current laws or policies, or alternative solutions that
establish conditions for financial sustainability of the NPAs within the current framework.
134. Efforts would be directed to identifying deficiencies, perverse incentives, and
inconsistencies in sectoral policies and procedures followed by different agencies that
increase pressure on protected areas and preclude integrated approaches. This study will also
analyze the inter-relationships, interdependencies, and interactions amongst key
organizations in terms of the flow of resources and information, formal and informal
networks of people, supporting communications infrastructure, etc. If possible, once these
actions have been defined they will be advanced during the PDF B, but given the close links
of this with the development of the PA system and the timeframes required for legal
processes, much of the legislative adjustments would be undertaken in the FSP. As part of
this assessment, existing enforcement mechanisms and levels of compliance will also be
analyzed.
135.
Activities:

Develop a work plan for the preparation of the legal and policy assessment, including
milestones, sequence of activities, timeline, and expected outputs.

Gather and analyze relevant information for the analysis.

Identify options for strengthening and rationalization of the legal and policy
framework, including drafting of revised legal instruments, as appropriate.

Initiate a process of discussion with policy makers concerning processes to be
followed during the project in effecting the necessary legal and policy changes.
Output 1.3: Analysis of institutional structures required to promote financial efficiency and
sustainability.
136. The Concept Paper notes that SINAC was created with a vision of a decentralized
organization, yet legal constraints have failed to deliver this vision. This suggests that the
current institutional structures are not optimal in order to promote efficient management and
secure financial sustainability. This activity will generate recommended actions to resolve
this problem.
137. At the institutional level, a review of existing responsibilities, procedures, equipment and
staffing arrangements of governmental institutions that are currently charged with PA
management will be undertaken, especially for SINAC. A process assessment will analyze
25
standards, policies, procedures and management practices related to organizational functions
such as PA planning, policy development, internal information and data flows, internal
communications processes, human resource management, performance/quality management,
financial/accounting management, monitoring and evaluation.
138. Assessment of human resources will look at numbers, skills, experience, qualifications,
and deployment of existing resources to meet the organization’s objectives, and at basic
personnel management policies such as hiring, recruiting, promoting, training and
development, career planning, retiring, etc.
139. In addition, capacities of other organizations that may be involved in PA
planning/management as set out in the Law, such as local governments, NGOs, and other
organizations of the civil society, will be assessed to identify needs for strengthening or
development during the FSP.
140.
Activities

Develop a work plan for the preparation of the capacity assessment, including
milestones, sequence of activities, timeline, and expected outputs.

Gather and analyze relevant information for the analysis.

Identify opportunities for capacity building/strengthening in the FSP.
OUTCOME 2. GEF and UNDP project documentation have been prepared, validated
amongst stakeholders and presented for evaluation and approval
Output 2.1 Project formulation workshops and consensus building.
Activities
141. A series of workshops and other for a will be held to ensure ownership of the project
among all stakeholder groups and to finalise the technical and administrative elements of the
project proposal. The workshops will include:

A workshop with representatives of key stakeholder groups to identify the key the
barriers that impede the effective management of the existing PA in Costa Rica and
consolidation of the PA system. This will draw on Output 1 threats assessment of
Costa Rica’s biodiversity and PAs and their root causes including policy,
institutional, social and economic issues that have a bearing on conservation.

Workshops and working sessions with representative of key stakeholder groups to
define the logical framework matrix for the project, identifying assumptions
underlying the project and defining a clear strategy for mitigating threats and risks to
outcomes (Output 2). In these workshops, indicators would be defined for the
measurement of project impact.

Technical working sessions for defining baseline values of the above mentioned
indicators, commissioning studies as required to attain these and defining the
26
scheduling and methodologies for the related measurement during project
implementation.
Output 2.2 GEF documentation prepared and co-funding commitments confirmed
Activities
142. Based on inputs from the previously described Outputs, a Project Document will be
prepared for presentation to the GEF Executive Council. This would follow the official
templates for Executive Summary and Mandatory annexes. The development of the GEF
Brief would also include the definition of Project outcome sequencing, and prepare cost
estimates of Logframe developed above. It would include the assessment of incremental
costs and their presentation in the correct format. As part of this process, SINAC will identify
and negotiate with prospective donors through both formal and informal activities from the
onset of the PDF-B phase to confirm funding commitments. The Project Documentation will
be circulated to STAP, other Implementing Agencies, the GEF Secretariat and the Secretariat
of the CBD for appraisal, and comments received from these reviewers and the Executive
Council will be addressed in finalising the document for final approval and financial
delegation by the GEF. The Documentation would consist of the following:
(i)
Executive Summary
(ii)
Mandatory Annexes:
a. Incremental Cost Assessment
b. Logical Planning Framework Matrix
c. Endorsement Letter and Co-funding commitments
(iii)
Additional Annexes
a. Threats and Barrier Analyses
b. Baseline assessment
c. Public Participation Plan and
Assessment
d. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
Stakeholders
(iv)
Other Annexes identification during the development process required detail
and/or justify project design and implementation
Output 2.3: UNDP Project Document completed and preparation for implementation finalised
143.
Activities:

Finalise the detailed institutional arrangements, including mechanisms for inter-agency
coordination, and broad stakeholder participation.

Prepare UNDP project document required for implementation of the FSP (i.e ToRs for
consultants and major sub-contracts, work plans, detailed budgets etc.).
27
B - PDF Block B (or C) Outputs
144. The main output of this PDF B will be the GEF Executive Summary and UNDP project
document, supported by all required Annexes, including the M&E workplan. In addition, as
described above in Section A, PDF activities will produce outcomes as a result of the project
design process in the form of strengthened institutional arrangements, mechanisms for
consultation and coordination, and methodologies for local participation and consensus
building.
C – Justification
145. Although considerable work has been undertaken and information collected to develop
the Project Concept, significant gaps remain and additional action is required to fully define
and cost project components and attain consensus of relevant stakeholders. Considering that
Costa Rica still faces significant resource constraints, PDF funding is requested to undertake
these and allow for the consultations and stakeholder participation mechanisms for project
design, as well as initial action to raise awareness on the importance of biodiversity
conservation and support for PAs and the consolidated NPAS in preparation of FSP
implementation.
D - Timetable
Month
1
Recruitment of PDF team
Outcome 1
Output 1.1
Output 1.2
Output 1.3
Outcome 2
Output 2.1
Output 2.2
Output 2.3
28
Month
2
Month
3
Month
4
Month
5
Month
6
E – Budget
146. Funding requested from the GEF amounts to $335,000. This will be supplemented by
$232,500 in co-financing.
US$
Intervention
GEF
OUTCOME 1: Capacity deficiencies for the establishment of a sustainable protected area
system have been fully assessed, and best approaches defined to address these through
the project
85,000
Output 1.1: Baseline biodiversity assessment and completion of PA
effectiveness analysis
50,000
Output 1.2 Analysis of the current legal and policy framework affecting
protected area management in Costa Rica
45,000
Output 1.3: Analysis of institutional structures required to promote financial
efficiency and sustainability.
OUTCOME 2. GEF and UNDP project documentation have been prepared, validated
amongst stakeholders and presented for evaluation and approval
90,000
Output 2.1 Project formulation workshops and consensus building (including
regional workshops)
35,000
Output 2.2 GEF documentation prepared and co-funding commitments
confirmed
30,000
Output 2.3: UNDP Project Document completed and preparation for
implementation finalised
Grand Total: US$
335,000
Name of Cofinancier (source)
TNC
CI
InBio
SINAC
Co-financing Sources
Classification
Type
Amount (US$)
NGO
NGO
Government
Government
Cash and inkind
Cash
In-kind
Cash and inkind
Sub-Total Co-financing
Status
144,000 Confirmed
15,000 Confirmed
14,000 Confirmed
59,500 Confirmed
232,500
29
Table of Content
PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT ............................................................................................................................... 2
A – SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................................... 2
B – COUNTRY OWNERSHIP .............................................................................................................................. 3
1. Country Eligibility............................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Country Drivenness.......................................................................................................................................... 3
C – PROGRAMME AND POLICY CONFORMITY .......................................................................................... 3
1. Programme Designation and Conformity ........................................................................................................ 3
2. Project Design.................................................................................................................................................. 4
3. Sustainability (including financial sustainability).......................................................................................... 18
4. Replicability ................................................................................................................................................... 19
5. Stakeholder Involvement ................................................................................................................................ 20
D. FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS........................................................................ 21
1. Financing Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 21
E INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT ............................................................................... 22
Core Commitments and Linkages ...................................................................................................................... 22
Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration between and among Implementing Agencies, Executing
Agencies, and the GEF Secretariat, if appropriate. ........................................................................................... 22
Implementation/Execution Arrangements .......................................................................................................... 23
PART II - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PREPARATION .................................................................................. 24
A - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PDF ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................... 24
B - PDF BLOCK B (OR C) OUTPUTS ...................................................................................................................... 28
C – JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................................ 28
D - TIMETABLE....................................................................................................................................................... 28
E – BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................................ 29
LIST OF ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................. 31
ANNEX 1: ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................... 32
ANNEX 2. MAP OF PROTECTED AREAS ....................................................................................................... 33
ANNEX 3: MAP OF BIODIVERSITY DATA: BOTANIC INFORMATION INBio-SINAC ............................... 35
ANNEX 4. MAP OF ENDEMIC PLANTS .......................................................................................................... 36
ANNEX 5: MAP OF BIOLOGICAL CORRIDORS ............................................................................................ 37
ANNEX 6: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 38
ANNEX 7: ENDORSEMENT BY COSTA RICAN GOVERNMENT ................................................................... 41
ANNEX 8: ENDORSEMENT OF CO-FINANCING .......................................................................................... 45
ANNEX 9: AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN IDB AND UNDP ................................................. 47
30
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1: Acronyms
Annex 2: Map of Protected Areas
Annex 3: Map of Endemic Species: Plants
Annex 4: Map of Biodiversity Data: Botanic Information INBio-SINAC
Annex 5: Map of Biological Corridors
Annex 6: Bibliographic References
Annex 7: Endorsement by Government of Costa Rica
Annex 8: Endorsement of Co-financing
Annex 9: Agreement of Cooperation between IDB and UNDP.
31
ANNEX 1: ACRONYMS
AC
ARESEP
ASP
BD-1
CBD
CCG
CI
CITES
CLAEH
CMS
CoP
COVIRENAS
Áreas de Conservación
Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos del país
Áreas Silvestres Protegidas
GEF Biodiversity Strategic Priority 1
Convention on Biological Diversity
Confederación Costarricense de Guardaparques
Conservation International
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Latin American Centre for Human Economy
Convention of Migratory Species
Conference of the Parties
CRUSA
Comités de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales
Fundación para la Cooperación Costa Rica-USA
ENA
ELAP
ESPH
FONAFIFO
GEF
GDP
GIS
IADB
INBIO
IUCN
MINAE
NBS
NPAS
OAS
OP
PA
PNE
PROBIDES
PSA
SINAC
TNC
UCI
UNDP
UNESCO
WCS
WWF
Estrategia Nacional Ambiental
Escuela Latinoamericana de Áreas Protegidas
Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia
Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal del MINAE
Global Environment Facility
Gross Domestic Product
Geographic Information System
Inter American Development Bank
Instituto de Biodiversidad
Internacional Union for the Conservation of Nature
Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía
National Biodiversity Strategy
National Protected Areas System
Organization of American States
GEF Operational Programme
Protected Area
Patrimonio Natural del Estado
Programme for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Eastern Wetlands
Pago por Servicios Ambientales
Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación
The Nature Conservancy
Universidad para la Cooperación Internacional
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Wildlife Conservation Society
World Wildlife Fund
32
ANNEX 2. MAP OF PROTECTED AREAS
33
INDICE DEL MAPA DE AREAS SILVESTRES PROTEGIDAS (POR CATEGORIA)
PARQUES NACIONALES
COD.
NOMBRE
RESERVAS FORESTALES
AREA (ha)
P01
ARENAL
P02
BRAULIO CARRILLO
P03
JUAN CASTRO BLANCO
P04
VOLCAN TURRIALBA
P05
P06
P07
MARINO LAS BAULAS DE
GUANACASTE.
P08
GUANACASTE
P09
RINCON DE LA VIEJA
P10
COD.
NOMBRE
REFUGIOS DE VIDA SILVESTRE
AREA(Ha)
12,123.71
R01
RIO PACUARE
47,582.69
R02
CORDILLERA VOLCANICA
CENTRAL
14,452.51
R03
1,256.57
VOLCAN POAS
BARRA HONDA
COD.
NOMBRE
CONT. DE REF. DE VIDA SILV.
AREA (ha)
13,177.59
V01
BARRA DEL COLORADO(mixto)
60,797.31
V02
GOLFITO (mixto )
LOS SANTOS
59,972.99
V03
GANDOCA - MANZANILLO (mixto)
R04
GOLFO DULCE
60,563.60
V04
CAÑO NEGRO (mixto )
6,506.46
R05
TABOGA
302.50
V05
CURU ( estatal )
2,297.00
R06
GRECIA
2,302.72
V06
OSTIONAl ( estatal )
R07
RIO MACHO
V07
PEÑAS BLANCAS ( mixto )
34,651.30
R08
PACUARE-MATINA
475.74
V08
TAMARINDO ( mixto )
14,160.63
R09
ZONA DE EMERGENCIA VOLCAN
ARENAL
231.04
V09
BOSQUE NAC. DIRIA (mixto)
SANTA ROSA
38,674.09
R10
LA CUREÑA
6,006.80
V10
BOSQUE ALEGRE (mixto)
P11
TORTUGUERO
31,187.30
R11
CERRO EL JARDIN
1,426.53
V11
LAGUNA LAS CAMELIAS (estatal)
P12
CORCOVADO
42,468.77
227834.08
V12
MATA REDONDA ( estatal )
P13
PIEDRAS BLANCAS
14,025.29
V13
FERNANDO CASTRO CERVANTES
(mixto)
P14
MARINO BALLENA
171.70
V14
CORREDOR FRONTERIZO (estatal )
P15
MANUEL ANTONIO
1,625.34
V15
LIMONCITO (mixto)
P16
CAHUITA
1,106.10
H01
RIBERINO ZAPANDI
357.51
V16
FINCA HACIENDA LA AVELLANA
(privado)
P17
CHIRRIPO
50,848.84
H02
PALUSTRINO LAGUNA
MAQUENQUE
157.03
V17
LA MARTA (privado)
P18
INTERNACIONAL LA AMISTAD
H03
LACUSTRINO DE TAMBORCITO
V18
PUNTA LEONA (privado)
P19
BARBILLA
11,944.44
H04
NACIONAL TERRABA-SIERPE
27,065.99
V19
FINANTICA (privado) derogado
P20
ISLA DEL COCO
2,309.78
H05
LACUSTRINO PEJEPERRITO
31.37
V20
CAMARONAL (mixto)
P21
PALO VERDE
18,417.76
H06
DE SAN VITO
45.11
V21
IGUANITA (estatal)
P22
VOLCAN TENORIO
12,871.53
H07
PALUSTRINO LAGUNA DEL
PARAGUAS
50.78
V22
DR. ARCHIE CARR ( estatal )
44.23
P23
VOLCAN IRAZU
2,000.37
H08
PALUSTRINO CORRAL DE PIEDRA
2,485.73
V23
COSTA ESMERALDA (privado)
21.83
P24
TAPANTI - MACIZO CERRO DE
LA MUERTE
58,322.59
H09
LACUSTRINO BONILLA BONILLITA
P25
CARARA
5,242.24
H10
RIO CAÑAS
623,773
H11
LAGUNA MADRIGAL
H12
MARINO DE PLAYA BLANCA
H13
NACIONAL CARIARI
H14
MANGLAR(Fuera de ASP)
H15
ESTERO DE PUNTARENAS Y
MANGLARES ASOCIADOS
TOTAL
378.58
199,147.18
RESERVAS BIOLOGICAS
B01
ALBERTO MANUEL BRENES
7,799.41
TOTAL
HUMEDALES
B02
ISLA DEL CAÑO
326.29
B03
ISLA GUAYABO
6.27
B04
ISLA PAJAROS
3.96
B05
ISLAS NEGRITOS
B06
HITOY CERERE
9,949.83
N01
CABO BLANCO
B07
LOMAS DE BARBUDAL
2,645.71
N02
NICOLAS WESSBERG
B08
CERRO LAS VUELTAS
142.30
801.47
TOTAL
21,675
22,577.26
*
1,036.05
Area Manglar todo el país
ZONAS PROTECTORAS(CONT)
AREA (ha)
81,210.55
V40
TRANSILVANIA(privado)
2,810.69
V41
DONALD PETER
HAYES(privado)
3,833.25
V42
PRECIOSA
PLATANARES(mixto)
225.99
10,171.45
V43
ROMELIA(mixto)
167.52
69.53
V44
CURI CANCHA(privado)
352.26
V45
CERRO DANTAS(privado)
V46
JAGUARUNDI(privado)
385.66
V47
LA
2,951.45
V48
SURTUBAL(privado)
833.02
V49
PLAYA HERMOSA(mixto)
64.71
V50
371.88
2,400.00
ENSENADA(mixto)
COD.
63.06
Z15
210.99
Z16
NOMBRE
AREA (ha)
CUENCA DEL RIO TUIS
4,113.29
TIVIVES
2,102.14
Z17
ACUIFEROS GUACIMO Y
POCOCI
4,257.54
Z18
ARENAL - MONTEVERDE
28,264.54
71.80
Z19
TENORIO
45.89
Z20
MIRAVALLES
124.96
Z21
5,530.98
11,676.13
TORTUGUERO
909.00
CUENCA DEL RIO BANANO
491.72
Z22
136.19
Z23
RIO TORO
43.57
Z24
QUITIRRISI
PEJEPERRO(mixto)
440.51
Z25
PENINSULA DE NICOYA
V51
CARATE(mixto)
122.56
Z26
NOSARA
1,383.23
V52
LAGUNAZUL(privado)
14.40
Z27
MONTES DE ORO
59,738.66
V53
RIO ORO(estatal)
39.27
Z28
CERRO LA CRUZ
1,128.93
V54
OSA(mixto)
1,603.76
Z29
CUENCA DEL RIO
ABANGARES
4,409.57
508.32
V55
QUILLOTRO(mixto )
77.29
Z30
CUENCA DEL RIO
SIQUIRRES
681.32
1,290.53
V56
PARAMO(privado)
568.87
Z31
QUEBRADA ROSARIO
V57
RIO PIRO(privado)
V58
CUEVA DEL
MURCIELAGO(privado)
233.67
V59
ISLA SAN LUCAS
114.16
V60
CIPANCI
34.29
31.32
Z32
9,247.35
4,304.04
991.58
21,747.04
924.24
1,820.78
234.10
25.45
CERRO EL CHOMPIPE
88.36
TOTAL
74.31
155,816
467.46
1,521.33
TOTAL
180,034
OTRAS AREAS SILV. PROTEGIDAS
O01
MONUMENTO NACIONAL
GUAYABO
O02
ESTACION EXP.FOR.
HORIZONTES
232.04
7,329.52
38.27
V24
ESTICA LTDA. (privada)(derogado)
V25
BAHIA JUNQUILLAL (estatal )
12.24
V26
CACYRA (privado)
36.68
Z01
CERRO DE ESCAZU
7,175.87
3.42
V27
AGUA BUENA (privado)
182.34
Z02
CARAIGRES
3,204.64
E01
FINCA LAS DELICIAS
1,378.14
818.18
V28
WERNER SAUTER (mixto)
139.57
Z03
LAS TABLAS
19,926.04
E02
FINCA LA VIRGEN
1,923.30
29,751.00
V29
RHR BANCAS (privado)
59.04
Z04
CERROS DE LA
CARPINTERA
2,386.00
E03
FINCA SIN NOMBRE
V30
HACIENDA COPANO (privado)
77,871
V31
LA CEIBA (privado)
60,731.00
V32
FORESTAL GOLFITO S.A (privado)
V33
15,363.00
TOTAL
442.95
EL RODEO
Z05
272.68
Z06
CERRO ATENAS
86.98
Z07
RANCHO LA MERCED (mixto)
345.64
V34
FINCA BARU DEL PACIFICO (mixto)
1269.69
V35
PORTALON (mixto)
60.76
V36
AVIARIOS DEL CARIBE (privado)
1,330
V37
PUNTA RIO CLARO (mixto)
V38
JOSEPH STEVE FRIEDMAN (privado)
V39
CATARATAS DE CERRO
REDONDO(privado)
34
7,562
ZONAS PROTECTORAS
260.25
RESERVAS NATURALES ABSOLUTAS
TOTAL
NOMBRE
655.27
TOTAL
* Nota
COD.
FINCAS PROPIEDAD DEL ESTADO
135.63
FINCA SIN NOMBRE
1,875.49
E04
900.08
E05
FINCA SIN NOMBRE
2,847.51
LA SELVA
2,443.83
E06
FINCA SIN NOMBRE
132.39
Z08
RIO TIRIBI
676.13
E07
FINCA SIN NOMBRE
2.25
331.53
Z09
CERROS DE TURRUBARES
2,867.86
E08
FINCA SIN NOMBRE
73.18
414.94
Z10
RIO NAVARRO Y RIO
SOMBRERO
6,463.30
55.36
Z11
CERRO DE LA CANGREJA
1,861.31
246.94
Z12
RIO GRANDE
1,498.51
18.99
Z13
645.08
Z14
CERRO NARA
EL CHAYOTE
1,920.70
TOTAL
8,413
NOTAS No incluye las àreas marinas
2,351.75
Cálculo de extensiones según S.I.G.
857.72
Set. 2001
ANNEX 3: MAP OF BIODIVERSITY DATA: BOTANIC INFORMATION INBio-SINAC
35
ANNEX 4. MAP OF ENDEMIC PLANTS
36
ANNEX 5: MAP OF BIOLOGICAL CORRIDORS
37
ANNEX 6: BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
Arguedas, Stanley, 2001 Estudio Rápido de Manejo para una Muestra de 19 Áreas Protegidas
Gerencialmente Fuertes de Costa Rica ELAP, CRUSA, WCS
Báez, Linda. 2004. Consultoría en Aspectos Institucionales. Programa de Turismo Sostenible en
Torno a Áreas Silvestres Protegidas (ASP). Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. San José,
Costa Rica
Bien, Amos 2001 Consolidación Administrativa y Económica del Sistema de Áreas Protegidas
de Costa Rica: Diagnóstico Rápido Revisión de Literatura y Criterio de Expertos
Referentes a los Problemas Prioritarios Administrativos, Legales y Financieros.
BID. 2003. Medio Ambiente: documento de estrategia. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo,
Washington, DC
Boza, Mario; Bien, Amos; Madrigal, Miguel. 2002. Consolidación del Sistema de Áreas
Protegidas Públicas de Costa Rica. Confederación Costarricense de Guardaparques,
Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano, Universidad para la Cooperación Internacional,
Wildlife Conservation Society. San José, Costa Rica
Brenes, Oscar. 2003. Experiencia Ambiental de Costa Rica en Biodiversidad. En: Mercado,
Leida; Blanco, José María; Fajardo, Kathya; Girot, Pascal. La Experiencia de Costa Rica en
Biodiversidad. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Ministerio del
Ambiente y Energía. San José, Costa Rica
Consejo Social Gobierno de la República de Costa Rica. (2005) Objetivos de Desarrollo del
Milenio, Primer Informe sobre el Avance del País en su Cumplimiento (sin publicar)
Davey, A. National System Planning for Protected Areas. Adrian Phillips, Ed. Best Practice
Protected Areas Series Nº. 1. IUCN, WCPA, Cardiff Univesity.
Dinerstein, E.; Olson, D.; Graham, D.; Webster, A.; Primm, S.; Bookbinder, M.; Ledec, G. 1995.
A conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the
Caribbean. The World Bank & World Wildlife Fund, World Bank. Washington, DC.
Ferroukhi, Lyès. 2003. Municipal Forest Management in Latin America. Center for Internacional
Forestry Research. Internacional Development Research Centre (IDRC). Bogor, Indonesia
Foro Ambiental, Memoria del Taller Área Temática Áreas Protegidas. Aportes para la
Consolidación del Sistema de Áreas Protegidas de Costa Rica 1y 2 de noviembre del 2001,
Foro Ambiental, Fundación CR-USA, WCS, CBM, UCI
Observatorio para el Desarrollo: Geo-Costa Rica: Una perspectiva sobre el Medio Ambiente.
2002, MINAE, PNUMA.
IUCN. 1998. Economic Values of Protected Areas. Guidelines for Protected Area managers. A.
Phillips, ed. Best Practice Protected Areas Series Nº. 2. IUCN, WCPA, Cardiff Univesity.
Madrigal, Miguel 2001 Diagnóstico Situacional de las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de Costa Rica
Confederación Costarricense de Guardaparques.
38
Mercado, Leida; Blanco, José María; Fajardo, Kathya; Girot, Pascal. 2003. La Experiencia de
Costa Rica en Biodiversidad. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo.
Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía. San José, Costa Rica
Mercado, Leida; Blanco, José María; Fajardo, Kathya; Girot, Pascal. 2003. La Experiencia de
Costa Rica en Ecoturismo. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Ministerio
del Ambiente y Energía. San José, Costa Rica
Mercado, Leida; Blanco, José María; Fajardo, Kathya; Girot, Pascal. 2003. La Experiencia de
Costa Rica en Servicios Ambientales. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo.
Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía. San José, Costa Rica
MINAE, PNUD, ONF. 2001. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Forestal 2001-2010 74 p
MINAE, SINAC 2001 Informe Monitoreo Áreas Silvestres Protegidas 15 p.
MINAE, SINAC, 2000 Estrategia Nacional de Conservación y Uso Sostenible de la
Biodiversidad 82 p.
Morrone, J. J. Biogeografía de América Latina y el Caribe. CYTED - ORCYT/UNESCO - SEA Cooperación Iberoamericana. Manuales y Tesis vol 3. Zaragoza.
Obando, Vilma; García, Randall; Sevilla, Lesbia; Marín, Patricia. __. Estrategia Nacional de
Conservación y Uso Sostenible de la Biodiversidad: resumen. Ministerio del Ambiente y
Energía, Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación,
PNUD-GEF, San José, Costa Rica
Obando, Vilma. Biodiversidad en Costa Rica: Estado del Conocimiento y Gestión 2002
Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Sistema Nacional
de Áreas de Conservación, Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad.
Proyecto Biodiversidad en el Desarrollo (2001) Enfoque Estratégico para Integrar la
Biodiversidad en la Cooperación para el Desarrollo Comisión Europea, Bruselas,
Bélgica/IUCN, Glad, Suiza y Cambridge, Reino Unido.
Proyecto Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano (2002) El Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano:
Una Plataforma para el Desarrollo Sostenible Regional Serie Técnica 01. CCAD, PNUD,
PNUMA.
Proyecto Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano (2002) El Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano:
Costa Rica Serie Técnica 06. SINAC, CCAD, PNUD, PNUMA.
SINAC-MINAE. 2003. Fortalecimiento de la Capacidad Nacional para la Consolidación de las
Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de Costa Rica: proyecto presentado a Fundación CRUSA.
Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía-Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. San José,
Costa Rica
SINAC-MINAE. 2003. Informe Nacional sobre el Sistema de Áreas Silvestres Protegidas.
Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía-Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. San José,
Costa Rica
TNC-CBM-CI. 2002. El Sistema Centroamericano de Áreas Protegidas. The Nature
Conservancy, Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano, Conservation Internacional. San José,
Costa Rica
39
UNDP-GEF. __. Conserving Biodiversity Sustaining Livelihoods: experience from GEF-UNDP
biological diversity projects. United Nations Development Program, Global Environmental
Facility, New York
UNDP-GEF. 2003. Conserving Forest Biodiversity. United Nations Development Program,
Global Environmental Facility, New York
UNDP-GEF. 2003. Local Business for Global Biodiversity Conservation. United Nations
Development Program, Global Environmental Facility, New York
40
ANNEX 7: ENDORSEMENT BY COSTA RICAN GOVERNMENT
41
42
43
44
ANNEX 8: ENDORSEMENT OF CO-FINANCING
45
46
ANNEX 9: AGREEMENT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN IDB AND UNDP
47
wb155260
\\divcl90a\GEF-Div\ProjectDocs\Biodiversity\Costa Rica - Overcoming Barriers to Sustainability Protected Areas System\04-08-05 Concept PDF B for Pipeline20.doc
05/17/2005 10:47:00 AM
48